Smt. Vimla Bai vs Jalam Singh Gond
2023 Latest Caselaw 14399 MP

                                                               1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                                               ON THE 2 nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                                MISC. PETITION No. 5227 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SMT. VIMLA BAI D/O TULSIRAM MUNDA, AGED ABOUT
                           55   YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O GRAM
                           PANCHAYAT    ANDHOURA     PANCHAYAT   LOHARI
                           DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                              .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI RAVI SHANKAR YADAV - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           JALAM SINGH GOND S/O MANDAN SINGH GOND
                           GRAM HARDUA POST ANDHOURA TEHSIL MAJHOLI
                           DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI GOPESH YASH TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 10.10.2022 passed by SDO (Revenue) Damoh in Revenue Case No.40/B-121/2022-23 by which a direction has been given to lodge an FIR against petitioner for preparing a fake caste certificate.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that respondent persuaded petitioner to execute certain sale deeds and also assured that he would get her caste certificate prepared. Accordingly, she went alongwith respondent to Damoh where an application was filed for issuance of caste certificate. Later on, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 04-09-2023 18:33:14

at the time of execution of sale deed, respondent informed that caste certificate of petitioner has been issued and the said caste certificate was provided to petitioner by respondent himself. Later on, a complaint was made by respondent that petitioner has prepared a forged caste certificate. It is submitted that thereafter petitioner tried to find out status of her application, then she came to know that her application for issuance of caste certificate was already rejected for want of prosecution and an appeal is pending against the same. However, it was fairly conceded by counsel for petitioner that caste certificate which was relied upon by petitioner while executing the sale deed was fake caste certificate.

3. The only defence of counsel for petitioner is that petitioner is not responsible for preparation of the said caste certificate but it was the respondent who was an instrumental to the said creation and thus, lodging of FIR against petitioner is not warranted. It is further submitted that in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, preliminary inquiry should have been conducted.

4 . Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent. It is submitted that caste of petitioner is Mudha whereas she had got her certificate by disclosing herself to be member of Munda and therefore, she is in habit of taking advantage of similarity in the names of two different castes.

5. Heard learned counsel for parties.

6. The primary contention of counsel for petitioner is that although caste certificate which was relied upon by her during execution of sale deed is a fake document but it was got prepared by respondent and she was not an Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 04-09-2023 18:33:14

instrumental to that.

7. The aforesaid submission is the defence of petitioner which cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising power under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India.

8. So far as question of pre-audience before directing the authority to register an offence or for conducting a preliminary inquiry is concerned, once this fact has already been admitted by petitioner that her application for issuance of caste certificate was dismissed for want of prosecution and caste certificate relied upon by her during execution of sale deed is fake, then there was no question of conducting any preliminary inquiry. Even otherwise preliminary inquiry is not requirement of law and it is merely desirable under certain circumstances to verify contents of complaint. Furthermore, suspect has no right of pre-audience prior to registration of FIR.

9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference in order dated 10.10.2022 passed by SDO (Revenue), Damoh in Revenue Case No.40/B-121/2022-23.

10. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE vc

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 04-09-2023 18:33:14